glass_drag

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions window-relative coordinates and optional modifiers, but lacks details on coordinate system origin, default button, boundary behavior, or side effects. This is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and key optional features without extraneous information. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits details like coordinate system origin, default button, and behavior when coordinates are invalid, which are critical for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 29%. The description adds meaning by specifying that coordinates are window-relative and that a button is held. However, it does not explain all parameters (e.g., 'button' options, 'duration_ms' implications beyond schema description).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a drag operation from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2) using window-relative coordinates, and mentions optional modifiers. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'glass_click' and 'glass_scroll'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for drag actions with a button held, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'glass_gesture' or 'glass_click'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.